Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schoening highlighted the practices of the Puget Sound area, cited in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), and demonstrated the integration of stormwater management into land use planning. He related that communities around Puget Sound formed interdisciplinary teams of people who had expertise in stormwater and people who had expertise in land use. They conducted a comprehensive review of the development code, the stormwater development standards, and other sections of the code and administrative policies and procedures. He said they identified what barriers there might be and ways to encourage more use of low- impact development practices through regulation and incentives. Mr. Schoening said the stormwater development standards that the council adopted in June had been in effect for six months and no problems with the standards had been identified. He felt the idea of low-impact development had a lot of merit and would be a value to the stormwater program and land use process. Staff’s recommendation was to continue with current work programs in fiscal year (FY) 2007 for both the Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Public Works Department and to direct the City Manager to incorporate the comprehensive view into the PDD and Public Works work programs for FY08 with the goal of coming up with a series of recommendations to further the use of low-impact development practices. Ms. Taylor asked why wait until FY08. Mr. Schoening replied that this was because the City was half-way through FY07. He stated that PDD had a prioritized work program that would be adversely affected by moving forward at this time. Ms. Taylor asked how long it would be after the study was completed before the council could adopt elements of green development such as an eco-roof or curbless streets. Mr. Schoening replied that it depended on the measure as some things would go through an administrative rule process, which could go quickly, while other things would be land use decisions that include notification requirements and would be processed through the Planning Commission and the City Council. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Schoening said the eco-roof was already a practice available to new development in the manual that had been adopted administratively subsequent to the adoption of the ordinance. He stated that the measures that would require changes to the Land Use Code would take the larger process. He cited parking lot standards and floor-to-area ratios (FAR) as examples of items that were addressed in the Land Use Code. Ms. Taylor asked how curbless streets could be addressed. Mr. Schoening responded that curbless streets were a design standard within the arterial and collector street standards that could be altered through an administrative order. Ms. Taylor surmised that the council could direct the City Manager to enact it. Mr. Schoening added that one of the reasons the two departments would be involved was because there were competing values in some of the elements. He underscored the necessity of ensuring that adoption of something related to stormwater would not adversely affect something else that was important to a neighborhood, as an example. Ms. Bettman remarked that it sounded to her that the code provision cited in the AIS created a trade-off to provide an incentive for utilizing an eco-roof such as the possibility of a more permissive FAR. She asked if this meant a requirement for a “denser building” to efficiently use a site could be reduced by the use of an eco-roof. Mr. Schoening replied that he did not think of it that way, though it was possible. He noted that Portland had viewed it the other way, allowing more FAR in the central business area for the utilization of an eco-roof. He confirmed that the City could continue to preserve the policies of densifying and the creation of less permeable surfaces while maintaining incentives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 2 Work Session